[iandayre]

So, are most of the regulars here going to play in this tournament? Should be fun, and obviously those of us experienced with GIB, especially the Human Best Hand format, will have some advantage. I suppose I am looking forward even more to all the comments from experienced players new to GIB. I guarantee that some will make the ACBL Bulletin, and I am sure there will be an article, which will of course minimize and excuse GIB's foibles. Should be very interesting indeed, especially now that there will be significant Masterpoint awards.

[Phil]

Yes, I am signed up.

Will be interesting to see how much swinging there is in the main event.

[The_Badger]

iandayre, on 2017-July-15, 18:15, said:

I suppose I am looking forward even more to all the comments from experienced players new to GIB. I guarantee that some will make the ACBL Bulletin, and I am sure there will be an article, which will of course minimize and excuse GIB's foibles.

Given that GIB is consistent, even with its 'foibles' - 'foible' what a polite, humanitarian way of gently criticising AI - does still make it a level playing field though. May the best man or woman win!

[MrAce]

I would love to play it but I am not allowed to, due to not being an ACBL member.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2017-July-15, 20:23, said:

Will be interesting to see how much swinging there is in the main event.

This is different. It is 4 sessions and much more boards per session.
Whoever wins will not be winning due to swinging imo.
I wish you the best of luck, Phil. Whatever you do, do not let GIB put you on tilt!

Having said that, there will be a lot of people swinging. Especially in the last session. This may make very average looking boards score very good.
I am guessing out of 96 boards there will be about 30-40 boards that has very close critical decisions and you want to score well in at least 21/30 or 28/40 of them.

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2017-July-16, 04:21, said:

I would love to play it but I am not allowed to, due to not being an ACBL member.

You can join online, and should be able to register the next day. Do it soon to get the $40 early-bird price.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2017-July-16, 15:46, said:

You can join online, and should be able to register the next day. Do it soon to get the $40 early-bird price.

It's 50+40 $. Too much for my budget for one event.

[johnu]

I've been thinking about signing up to play, but for $40 my expected masterpoints from playing 40 $1 robot games is a lot higher than the NABC tournament. I tried to win a "free" entry in the last practice tournament but finished 1 place (~1/2%) out of the money. I looked through all 36 hands and there wasn't a single board where I could have defended a trick better, declared a trick better, or been in a better contract so there are no what-ifs on my end but now I still have to pay $40 entry fee.

I'm still thinking whether it is worth the money and effort for 4 days to enter.

I try to play straight down the middle with GIB. No shorter minor openings, off shape or weak NT's, etc. While the GIB bidding "tricks" may work out, when they don't work, they really don't work. IMHO, you are giving bad odds by using GIB bidding tricks. Playing solid, mistake free bridge and getting some good luck is worth ~70% on average based on the NABC practice fields. By trying for a swing, maybe you'll get a 90+% result. If it doesn't work and you get a terrible result, you may get a sub 20% result. So 20% more if you fool GIB, and 50% less if GIB fools you. I don't like the odds.

Maybe the actual field will be substantially better than the practice fields, but here's an example of an 80% board that I had.

{comments}

---

I overcalled 4♠ over a 4♥ opening like 14/15 players did. I took 7 top tricks for 80%. 7 players managed to promote a trump trick for the opponents by ruffing high for no apparent reason.

[iandayre]

UPDATE!

Regular posters to this BB who played in the NABC event did very well. I recognized the names of 4 players who scored over 60%

johnu 16th Place 65.20%
stefan_o 28th place 64.11%
stephtu 92nd place 61.58%
iandayre 168th place 60.16%

A total of 2428 players participated. Anyone I missed?

[Stephen Tu]

Mbodell 36
Phil 39
CSGibson 50
ArtK78 71

Might have missed some others.

[Phil]

Yes, I played in this and enjoyed it. I'm not sure my masterpoint ROI was particularly great, but it was fun to be part of the inaugural tournament.

From the league's perspective, it was a home run, but there's no reason that this event cannot be stratified. I would not compare it to a regula NABC because you have a much broader class of players. Either that or flight the event so you have a 0-2000 online individual maybe.

Even though I had a reasonable finish, I didn't play my best. I would usually log on after a 10 hour day and be a little tired. More than once I dozed off during a hand and had to reconstruct the position lol.

[nige1]

iandayre, on 2017-July-27, 11:43, said:

Regular posters to this BB who played in the NABC event did very well. I recognized the names of 4 players who scored over 60%
johnu 16th Place 65.20%
stefan_o 28th place 64.11%
stephtu 92nd place 61.58%
iandayre 168th place 60.16%
A total of 2428 players participated. Anyone I missed?

Stephen Tu, on 2017-July-27, 13:33, said:

Mbodell 36
Phil 39
CSGibson 50
ArtK78 71
Might have missed some others.

Congratulations. Well played, chaps! Most of the top names in the ranking-list seem familiar, which is a good sign.
I couldn't play but thank you BBO, for the opportunity!
And congratulations to the ACBL for their persistence in the face of criticism. In particular, I applaud the ACBL for keeping to a simple format. In spite of dire predictions, this event seems to have been a success.

[Stephen Tu]

Does seem a bit of a gip to beat 2400+ players for 2 masterpoints. Would get much more for beating far fewer over 5-6 games at the local club. I care only a little about points but they ought to be at least somewhat proportional to difficulty.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-July-28, 10:26, said:

Does seem a bit of a gip to beat 2400+ players for 2 masterpoints. Would get much more for beating far fewer over 5-6 games at the local club. I care only a little about points but they ought to be at least somewhat proportional to difficulty.

As I've been saying, there needs to be fairly small sections so you can win a decent amount of points for a high section finish. That way, if you have a pretty good session, you'll place pretty high in your section since you don't have to beat ~2700 (there were almost 2700 paid entries, but a lot didn't even start, and others dropped out before the end) other players.

Because of the way the ACBL calculates masterpoints, you get very few masterpoints unless you have a very high finish when there are that many competitors.